Bill C-58

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions;
(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and
(e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

I think if there's ever been an example of a party that doesn't want to talk about legislation, Canadians can see that today. The Conservative Party wants to talk about everything but this legislation. I am not going to talk about how a turkey cost $100 two years ago and I bought one for $35 two weeks ago. I am not going to talk about that.

Ms. Senneville, my question for you is this: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were two stunning pieces of legislation that the Conservative Party brought forth when it was in government that were absolutely detrimental and devastating to unions.

I would like you to talk to us, for the record, about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and tell us what they did to unions. I want you to also comment on Bill C-58 and how important it is. I want you to dispel the myth that unions want to strike.

[Robert Ashton]

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see the relevance to Bill C-58 when it comes to the unemployment rate in Canada. We're here to talk about anti-scab legislation, not the unemployment rate.

I am not here to give one political party or another political party the ability to score points, one against the other, so I'll decline to comment.

Thank you.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before asking the witnesses questions, I would just like to point out the presence in the room of Sébastien, a Videotron worker in Gatineau who has been locked out for more than six months now. He has to deal with the fact that replacement workers are taking his work and his salary. I think it's important to show that we're not just talking about events that happened 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, workers are still suffering the consequences of the use of replacement workers. My thanks to Sébastien for being with us today.

Ms. Senneville, you said you were touched to be here because this was an essential bill and a historic moment. I want to tell you that I feel the same way.

I would like to hear more from you about what Bill C‑58 will do for the members of the CSN in certain federations and in certain sectors. As a union leader, can you tell us what will change compared to what you have experienced in recent years?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

You used the image of Swiss cheese to talk about the holes in the bill. Quebec's anti-strikebreaking law makes it impossible to hire a worker from another bargaining unit before a strike notice or notice to commence collective bargaining is given. Under Bill C‑58, however, such tactics would be allowed. Even though the bill aims to prevent the use of replacement workers, it does allow for exceptions.

In your opinion, how does this undermine the very spirit of the bill?

[Marty Warren, National Director, United Steelworkers Union]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, thank you to the clerk and to the members of the committee for the chance to join you today.

I'm Marty Warren. I'm the national director for the United Steelworkers Union. The USW is the largest private sector union in North America, with 225,000 members in nearly every economic sector across Canada, including federally regulated members in rail, telecommunications, airport security and ports.

Steelworkers have been part of the anti-scab fight for decades. Our experience shows that bans on replacement workers improve labour relations, reduce the number and lengths of conflicts, and lead to better working and living standards for workers.

Strikes and lockouts are hard enough on the community, but the use of scabs pits workers against workers, neighbours against neighbours and, sometimes, even family members against family members. Further, it leads to decades of poor labour relations moving forward.

Anti-scab legislation already exists in B.C. and Quebec. Soon, Manitoba will be added to the list. We were happy when the NDP included the anti-scab legislation in the supply and confidence agreement, and when the Liberals tabled that legislation.

That said, it still falls short. It currently has loopholes, and employers will hire scabs and not live up to the intent of the legislation. Further, the delay of its coming into force is not reasonable. It's way too long.

As you can see from our submission, we have some clear recommendations to solve the problems.

First, anyone doing the job of a worker who is on strike or locked out must be included in the ban, no matter when they were hired. As it stands, as long as they were hired or contracted on or before the notice to bargain was served, employers could still use scabs who are from outside of the bargaining unit, from other locations, managerial or confidential employees, or contractors or employees from another employer.

Of course, we accept exceptions for work needed to prevent an imminent threat to life, health and safety, destruction of property or environmental damage.

This brings me to the second recommendation, which is that an agreement about who would perform the conservation work needs to be made between both the employer and the union. The bill currently leaves it to the employer alone. If both sides can't agree, it should go to the Industrial Relations Board. Unions should have the right of first refusal to perform such work.

Third, any temporary employee hired to do conservation work cannot automatically become an employee in the bargaining unit. The current language would give preferential reinstatement to scabs over existing employees after the strike or lockout. That just doesn’t make sense.

Fourth, it needs to be clear that dependent contractors are not allowed to perform bargaining committee work. The bill specifically excludes dependent contractors from the ban, even though the Labour Code defines “employee” to include dependent contractors. The exception needs to be removed from proposed paragraph 94(4)(b).

Fifth, the waiting period for the IRB needs to be cut from 90 days to 45 days. At very least, the IRB needs to issue an interim or bottom-line decision within 45 days. Employers already take advantage of delays at the IRB for months and even years. Again, that has to be fixed, not allowed to get worse.

Finally, and very importantly, the delay before the implementation of this bill, once passed, needs to be scrapped. We have heard from public sector servants with experience that there's no need for this delay. If the government is serious about the law, it needs to come into force before the next election. It's far easier for the next government, whatever stripe it may be, to scrap a law that people haven't yet been able to use.

Workers can't afford to wait. In just the last year, we had members at our tugboat operations in Quebec and our telecom workers in B.C. stuck on the line when scabs came through.

In both of these cases, if they had been provincially regulated, they would have had the protection of anti-scab legislation, but since they were not, they did not.

For the good of all federally regulated workers, and to set an example to the provinces who still fall short, please accept and pass these amendments, and let Bill C-58 pass for implementation.

Thank you.

[Robert Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning from B.C. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to be before you all today.

My name is Rob Ashton. I'm the president of ILWU Canada, which represents 16,000 workers in B.C. and Saskatchewan in a variety of sectors, our largest sector being the maritime sector.

Members of ILWU Canada strongly support Bill C-58, and we urge this committee to wholeheartedly support this bill to make it better for workers who vote in Canada.

Strikes and lockouts are not easy on workers, and that's why the decision to go on strike is made by the rank and file of the union. The decision to go on strike is one that workers make as a last resort to try to get a fairly negotiated settlement with their employers, but it's definitely at a financial loss for these workers.

In regard to a lockout, the worker has no say in this, and employers impose this on them to break them as a united workforce. In fact, employers use this option to cripple workers financially in the hopes they will become desperate and accept a lesser deal just to go back to work.

Employers use terms like “team member” or “you're part of the family”, but then turn around and use scabs when the bottom line might be impacted. Employers that use scabs do not, never have and never will, care about their workers. They only see a path towards more profits, and in doing so, they hurt their employees, while tearing communities apart. In my opinion, employers who use scabs have no regard for these consequences.

When a strike or lockout happens, employers currently have an option to use scab labour. This puts the balance of power in the employer's hands, as it keeps their products moving, while at the same time turning worker against worker. This is a weapon of the bosses, and can and will be used to break the backs of Canadians so they can pocket more of the profits that are made off the backs of their employees.

In the history of ILWU Canada in the longshore division, scabs were utilized on June 18, 1935. This day has been immortalized as the Battle of Ballantyne Pier. On that day, longshore workers marched to the terminal to explain to the scabs that scabbing on them was not the right thing to do, and that standing shoulder to shoulder with their fellow workers would help strengthen all workers and give the longshoremen of the day a better chance at the bargaining table. What happened was these workers and allies were attacked by police and private constables with batons and other weapons, who also used tear gas as well at the women's auxiliary aid station. This, I might add, was the first time tear gas was used on Canadians in Canada. This was done just because they were there.

The use of scabs created conditions for violence perpetrated by employers and others against peaceful picketers, who were only fighting for a fair collective agreement. This attack is an example of what some employers and some governments feel is the only way to end a strike or a lockout while scabs are being used.

We wholeheartedly support Bill C-58 so that history does not have a chance to repeat itself and that will get workers get a fair shake to get a freely negotiated collective agreement by the banning of scab labour federally.

We are asking with urgency that this committee reduce the wait time for implementation of this bill to zero wait time. Canadian workers need this bill passed and put into law with zero delay to level the playing field, as they say. Canadian workers have waited long enough and expect our elected representatives to do what is right for workers.

In closing, I'd like to offer a message to the working class. If you are an environmentalist or a pipeline worker, a small shop owner or a longshoreman—we're all workers—do not let the employing class split us, as division is the weapon of the employing class.

To our elected officials as well as anyone else listening, I leave you all with a question from Pete Seeger in regard to Bill C-58—Which Side Are You On?

Thank you for giving me this time to speak.

[Caroline Senneville, President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Good morning. Thank you for having us.

I'll give a brief introduction to the CSN. The CSN is a union organization dating back over 100 years in Quebec and Canada. We have over 330,000 members in all industries, in both the private and public sectors. In terms of federally regulated organizations, we represent employees in the communications and grain elevator industries. The CSN also counts the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers among its members. We call ourselves the federation of national trade unions because we're active only in Quebec and Canada. We don't have any international ties.

I'm pleased and touched to be here today. You're studying a bill of vital importance to all Canadian workers. This doesn't happen often. There are all kinds of bills. However, for Canadian workers, Bill C‑58 is essential. I think that many people share this opinion. All parties in the House voted in favour of this bill at second reading.

As you know—and I'll say it again—the right to associate is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, this right has been tied in with good faith negotiations. When we associate, we have the right to negotiate in good faith. We also have the right to use a balance of power to negotiate in good faith and obtain a good collective agreement. Two Supreme Court rulings have set out these rights.

It's simple for us. If replacement workers are allowed in the event of a labour dispute, this flies in the face of the constitutional rights of Canadian workers as they now stand.

A strike is no picnic. The decision isn't made lightly. Labour codes provide a strict framework for exercising the right to strike and for obtaining a right to strike. We must have a secret ballot. When we're alone in the voting booth and we mark X in favour of a strike, we know when it will start, but we don't know when it will end. We often talk about the economic impact of a strike. However, these effects are mainly felt by the people exercising their right to strike. The decision is never made lightly.

For us, the right to strike is part of the balance of power. When the employer can hire replacement workers, it really upsets the balance of power. It even eliminates that balance, especially in the case of a lockout. Think about a lockout. A lockout isn't a democratic decision. It's a management decision. There isn't any vote on a lockout. The employer can make the decision well in advance and prepare by hiring workers or preparing to hire replacement workers. The employer holds all the cards. The balance of power on the workers' side is gone. In our opinion, this isn't right. I would even say that it completely contravenes the spirit of the charter or the latest Supreme Court rulings.

We're here to talk about Bill C‑58. We have some specific comments on the bill. We're pleased to see that it takes into account the new work reality and environment, including telework, and different workplaces. We come from a province with anti‑scab legislation. We're happy about that. However, the legislation has been in place for a long time, and adjustments are needed. This federal bill is completely up to date, and we welcome it.

That said, one of our main criticisms concerns the list of exceptions regarding employees who may not be hired as scabs. We find that the list of exceptions is quite long, and that it undermines the spirit or purpose of the bill. I would say, to use an image, that we're starting to see a few too many holes, and not enough cheese.

In our view, the only real exception that justifies hiring replacement workers is when essential services must be provided. Let's be clear. Essential services come into play when people's lives and safety are at risk. In Quebec, we have operated in this manner for over 40 years. No one has ever died or gone hungry because of a strike.

We also hope that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will have the resources needed to ensure the implementation of this bill. When a bill is passed, only half the work is done. The next step must involve ensuring the implementation of the provisions in the bill. It's vital to have an investigative process. We're all law‑abiding citizens here. However, if people knew that there weren't any police on the highway, I'm not sure that they would respect the speed limit.

In closing, since this bill is essential, we would like to see it come into force as soon as possible.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call this meeting to order. It is 8:15, and the clerk has advised me that we have quorum. The witnesses and committee members who are appearing virtually have been sound-tested, and all are good.

Welcome to meeting number 107 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person, as well as remotely using Zoom.

I would like to give a few points to the participants.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you are participating by video conference, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when not speaking.

Those on Zoom have the choice, as do those in the room, of participating in the official language of their choice. In the room, interpretation is available using the headset and earpiece; just select the language of your choice. Those appearing virtually can click on the globe icon at the bottom of their Surface and choose the language of their choice.

If there is an issue with sound quality and interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected. Those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” function.

As well, please direct all questions and inquiries through me, the chair.

Those in the room, please remember to keep your earpieces away from the microphones to prevent injury to the interpreters, who do an extremely valuable service for us. As well, if you could remember to speak slowly, that will give them the opportunity to translate effectively.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Appearing in the first hour, we have, from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Caroline Senneville, president, who will deliver the opening comments; Ioanna Egarhos, lawyer; and Pascal Jean political adviser. From the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, we have Robert Ashton, president, by video conference. From the United Steelworkers union, we have Marty Warren, national director, who will deliver the opening statement; and Meg Gingrich, assistant to the national director.

We will begin with Ms. Senneville.

For your opening comments, you have five minutes or less, please. You have the floor.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I'll be supporting the amendment moved by the government representatives. The original version of the motion is really a stalling tactic to delay the discussion on the anti‑scab bill and the adoption of the bill. The committee has already scheduled a study on the important issue of housing for June. That seems reasonable. We must also take into account the comments made by the witnesses here today and at the previous meeting. They said that we must work diligently. However, given the proposed dates, the Conservative motion would delay the study of Bill C‑58, which we in the NDP consider unacceptable.

However, I would like to move a subamendment. The Liberal amendment before us contains a discrepancy between the English and French versions. In the French version, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is invited, but in the English version, he simply isn't mentioned. I would like to move a subamendment to make sure that the two versions match and that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is invited.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

Bill C-58 could be said to eclipse Bill C-377 and Bill C-525—pun intended. I really appreciate that.

Ryan, you mentioned the different transportation networks that you wanted to talk about. I'm also on the trade committee. At the trade committee, the longshore people mentioned that they kept using replacement workers and whatnot, and it was really hard to get the employer at the table. This was their testimony. Quite frankly, they felt it prolonged what happened out west, and it shouldn't have.

Would you not agree that the best deals are done at the table, and that we ought to get people at the table consistently? This longshoreman—it was “man” at the time—said they would have to present, and the union would present to the opposite, and they couldn't make decisions because they weren't the employer either. They were representatives. They'd have to go back. It was delaying things forever.

Do you have any comments about that?

[Ryan Greer, Vice President, Public Affairs and National Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members, for having me here today on behalf of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

Manufacturing generates 10% of Canada's GDP, produces nearly two-thirds of Canada’s value-added exports and employs 1.8 million people in high-paying jobs across the country. It is important that the views of manufacturers are reflected in your deliberations and decisions regarding Bill C-58.

Up front, I want to note that my remarks will be focused on how this bill will impact manufacturers' reliance on railways and ports—critical enablers of Canada’s industrial economy. Their importance of course extends beyond the manufacturing sector. Ports and railways are the tangible connections that facilitate the functioning of our economy and the well-being of Canadians.

CME opposes Bill C-58. Many of our concerns with banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries are the same concerns that have been expressed by Parliament over the last decade and a half when it has voted against several similar initiatives.

Banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries may disrupt the delicate balance that exists in Canada’s collective bargaining system. The government's own discussion paper on this legislation stated that most studies on prohibiting replacement workers showed that they resulted in more frequent strikes and lockouts.

More labour disruptions will negatively impact small, medium and large manufacturers that rely on Canada’s railways and ports to access critical inputs and to get their goods to Canadian consumers and global customers.

Collective bargaining is an important part of a fair and functioning economy. However, there is a fundamental difference between a work stoppage at a port or railway and most other public or private organizations. The interconnected nature of modern manufacturing and logistics means that disruptions in these parts of the supply chain reverberate through the entire economy. It is essential that supply chains continue to function even during times of collective bargaining.

When labour action stops the movement of goods, it imposes harm on manufacturers in communities that are often hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away. This is neither fair nor functioning. It is imperative that the well-being of those businesses, their workers and their families also be taken into account in your study of this bill.

While CME does not support the legislation, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in your work in the hope that this committee will adopt amendments to the bill that would minimize its harm to manufacturers, the broader economy and Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.

CME recommends that this bill include a provision that grants authority to the Governor in Council to refer labour disputes in critical supply chain sectors to binding arbitration if parties cannot reach a negotiated agreement through collective bargaining.

Given the likelihood that the legislation will increase supply chain disruptions, it is appropriate to provide the federal government with the tools necessary to facilitate a resolution to disputes when they harm the national interest.

Additionally, we believe there are other amendments that could be made to the bill to further minimize supply chain uncertainty.

We recommend that proposed subsection 94(7) of the legislation be expanded to allow an employer to use a prohibited worker when there is an imminent or serious threat to the national interest or national economic security.

We also recommend that section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code be expanded to prevent imminent harm to the national interest or national economic security.

Again, our preference is that the legislation does not proceed. However, given the likelihood that it will, we urge you to seriously consider amendments that will support the integrity and resilience of Canada’s supply chains.

Last fall, Minister O’Regan announced a review process under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code to examine the structural issues underlying the recent longshoring dispute at our west coast ports, as well as some similar disputes. He had this to say:

Canada is a reliable trading partner to the world. That is a good thing for every employer and worker in this country. But our credibility depends on the stable operation of our supply chains. We must do everything we can to preserve that stability.

It is in that spirt CME is asking this committee to take steps to help preserve Canada’s supply chain credibility and stability. Canadian manufacturers are depending on it.

Thanks for having us here, and I look forward to your questions.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The Canadian Labour Congress is Canada's largest central labour body. We represent over 55 different unions and over three million workers in every sector and in every industry from coast to coast.

The CLC strongly supports Bill C-58 and urges the committee to strengthen the bill and to report the bill back to the House for third reading as quickly as possible.

In my over 30 years as a union activist, I have walked on countless picket lines in every part of this country. I have walked in the heat, the cold, the rain and the middle of the night with workers right across this country. I've walked with them on day one, and I've walked with them on day 123 of their strike or lockout.

Let's be clear. The decision to walk a picket line is never an easy decision for a worker to make. These are kitchen table conversations that workers have with their families. Can I afford the meagre offer the employer is putting forward? Worse, can I afford the takeaways that the employer has tabled in the concessions it is demanding from me, or am I prepared to forgo a paycheque and risk absolutely everything that I have built up with this employer in order to demand a fair deal by walking a picket line?

No worker wants to walk a picket line. What they want is a fair deal that's reached at a bargaining table with good conversations happening between the parties. Let's be clear. At times, it's not the worker's choice to be walking a picket line or not. Rather, it is the employer who chooses to lock out workers and then rub salt in the wound by hiring scab labour. That employer is sending workers one message, and it's this: If you want to see your jobs and your wages again, you had better back down and accept the offer that we are putting forward.

When employers have scabs in their back pocket, they don't need to come to the table to bargain fairly. They don't need to be serious about reaching a collective agreement. Workers, on the other hand, risk absolutely everything when they walk that picket line because—let's be honest here—some employers don't ever intend to get to a fair collective agreement. They use a lockout, or they push workers into a strike position by tabling massive concessions or to try to get rid of union representation in their workplace.

My co-worker from many years ago, Judy Starr, had worked at Loblaws for many years when our very financially sound employer demanded a reduction to our wages and benefits way back in 1987. Judy was a single parent of three kids living in social housing, and she knew that walking a picket line meant no regular paycheque for weeks to come. She also knew that not walking that picket line would mean an even harder time for her family to try to make ends meet. She rallied her co-workers—including me—to take on the employer's demands for concessions by walking that picket line, and our employer repaid workers like Judy by replacing her with scabs on day number one.

The use of scabs in that strike meant that strike dragged on for 124 days. That was 124 days where those workers had no paycheque while the employer continued doing business as usual. We workers who had diligently worked for that employer were made to walk a picket line just to keep what we had. It wasn't to make gains in that contract; it was to keep what we had.

Once the strike started, it was very clear that this was more than just a dispute about reaching a new collective agreement. It was about the very right of these workers to be able to have a voice at our workplace and to continue to be represented by a union.

For decades, the CLC has urged government to pass anti-scab legislation, and I want to commend the NDP and the Liberal government for working together to finally make this a reality. We have seen that this bill has unanimous support, and there is no excuse for delaying in adopting and bringing this legislation into force. Eighteen months is unnecessarily long, and it's far too long to be bringing this bill into effect.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good afternoon, committee members.

Welcome to meeting number 106 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members have the option of appearing virtually or in the room. Witnesses and committee members are appearing in person this afternoon.

You have the option of choosing to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. I wish to advise you to keep your earpiece away from the mic to protect the interpreters. If there is a loss of interpretation service, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while it is being clarified.

I remind members that all comments must be addressed through the chair. To do that, simply raise your hand in the room to get my attention, and I will recognize you.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

For today's meeting, we'll be hearing from representatives of two organizations at their request. A third organization was invited to appear, but asked to be rescheduled to a meeting later in April, so that meeting will have four organizations on the panel. I did agree to that request.

Today, from the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president; Chris Roberts, director, social and economic policy department; and from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Ryan Greer, vice-president, public affairs and national policy.

Each group will have five minutes for an opening statement.

Ms. Bruske, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Sandra Hassan]

Mr. Boulerice, I would reply that the workers you are talking about are not subject to part I of the Canada Labour Code. However, Bill C‑58 aims to amend that part. Unfortunately, these workers are not under our jurisdiction.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Minister O'Regan, thank you for coming.

I have to say that I am virtual, but I am just amazed and dumbfounded when I listen to the Conservative MPs today with this new-found concern for Canadian unions and the working class. It's just amazing. It's a 180° turnaround. They brought forth Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were arguably two of the biggest union-busting bills that we've seen in our history, and we reversed them.

Minister, I want to congratulate you for Bill C-58. It's progressive. It's going to move our country forward. It's historic legislation that's going to help Canadian workers get powerful paycheques.

As we've seen in the House and here in this committee—again, disappointingly so—the Conservative MPs do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

We know what the Leader of the Opposition is about, and what he did was support anti-labour bills. We know that he also supports American-style right-to-work legislation.

Minister, I want you to share with me why you think the Conservative MPs today do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

Thank you.